Fox ‘Liberal’ Bob Beckel: No New U.S. Mosques Until Muslims ‘Denounce’ Kenya Attack

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[1]

The mosque attacks in other countries are sectarian. They are Sunnis blowing up Shia and vice versa. The Tsarnaev's considered their mosque too moderate, but the congregants knew that they had been radicalized and didn't come forward.

Tsarnaev freaked out during one sermon, when the imam cited Martin Luther King Jr. as a good role model. It was the only time that Tsarnaev attended that mosque, and the people who observed it said that he was extreme, but none of them bothered to come forward and let the FBI know that they had a potential jihadi on their hands.

I'm glad that you asked that. Dennis Prager had a brilliant column about this, and I believe that he has hit on the solution:

Muslims Need to Confront Muslim Evil
Tuesday, September 24, 2013

With this weekend's massacre by Muslim terrorists at a mall in Nairobi, Kenya, and Muslim terrorists killing about 80 Christians at a Christian church in Pakistan, most people wonder what, if anything in addition to a continuing war on terror, can be done to minimize the scourge of Islamic terror.

The answer lies with Muslims themselves. Specifically, it means that Muslim religious leaders around the world must announce that any Muslim who deliberately targets non-combatants for death goes to hell.

I arrive at this answer based on something that I have long believed about Pope Pius XII and the Holocaust.

I readily acknowledge that the situations are not the same. The Jews of Europe were not annihilated by Catholics in the name of Catholicism; whereas the Christians, Muslims and Jews who are massacred by Islamic terrorists are murdered by Muslims in the name of Islam.

I also readily acknowledge that many of the attacks on Pope Pius XII for his alleged inaction and even collaboration with the Nazis during the Holocaust are animated by individuals who hate Western religion generally or hate the Catholic Church specifically. Pius XII was not "Hitler's Pope," as one best-selling book on Pius XII is titled.

Moreover, Pius XII lived in Italy during World War II, in a fascist dictatorship that began as Hitler's ally and ended up being the target of Nazi atrocities. This was not the case with President Franklin D. Roosevelt, for example, who lived in the safety of a free country six-thousand miles away from Germany, did nothing to save the Jews of Europe, and even sent a boatload of Jewish refugees from Hitler back to Europe. Yet the critics of Pius are silent about Roosevelt.

Nevertheless, Pius could have done more to at least slow down the Holocaust. And I say this recognizing that Italy's Catholic clergy saved many Jews, and that Pius, to his credit, had to be aware of this. What he could have and should have done was to announce that any Catholic -- and any Christian for that matter -- who in any way helps in the murder of innocent Jews is committing a mortal sin and will not attain salvation. In other words, he or she will go to hell.

This would have had no impact on the many Germans and other Europeans who had no belief in God or religion; but it would have had an impact on many who did.

I believe the same thing regarding Muslim terror. Muslim leaders -- specifically, every imam in the world who is not a supporter of terror, the leaders of the most important Sunni institutions, such as the Al-Azhar Mosque and University in Cairo, and religious leaders in Saudi Arabia and the in Gulf states -- must announce that any Muslim who participates in any deliberate attack on civilians goes to hell.

This must be announced as clearly and as repeatedly as, for example, Muslim condemnations of Israel.

Just as the promise of immediate entrance into paradise animates many Muslim terrorists, the promise of immediate hell would dissuade many Muslims from committing acts of terrorism. Just as the promise of 72 virgins animates many Muslim terrorists, the promise of hell would dissuade many Muslims from terrorism.

Whenever non-Muslims ask Muslim organizations about Muslim terrorism, these organizations trot out the various anti-terrorism statements they have issued. But these are largely useless because: a) they are usually issued by Western Muslim organizations; b) even when they are issued by Middle Eastern Muslims, they almost always include condemnation of "state terrorism," which is Muslim-speak for condemnation of any use of force by Israel; and c) these statements usually also condemn non-Muslim terror, as if Christian or Jewish or Buddhist terrorism is as great a threat to humanity as is Muslim terrorism.

Therefore the statements that need to be made by every Muslim teacher, school, mosque and organization that does not support Muslim terror must be unequivocal. They need to state that any Muslim who targets any civilian for death -- whether that civilian is Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Hindu or of no religion -- goes to hell.

In addition, there need to be large Muslim demonstrations against Muslim terrorism. I understand that Muslim clerics who would organize such demonstrations in the Muslim world might be risking their lives. But what about Muslims in America and Europe?

There have been huge Muslim demonstrations against cartoons depicting Muhammad and any other perceived "insult" against Islam. But I am unaware of a single demonstration of Muslims against Muslim terror directed at non-Muslims.

And if morality doesn't persuade Muslim leaders to issue such a statement and organize such demonstrations, perhaps self-interest will. To just about everyone in the world outside of academia and the media, Islam is not looking good. Muslim leaders should be aware that with Muslims burning Christian churches and Christian bodies in Pakistan, Iraq, Nigeria, Egypt and elsewhere, and the regular massacring of innocents by Muslim terror groups, the protestations by Muslim spokesmen that "Islam is religion of peace" are beginning to wear thin. For a religion that seeks converts, this is not a positive development.

On the other hand, perhaps not that many Muslim religious leaders do believe that Muslim terrorists are going to hell.

Prager nails it: Muslims have to ackowledge that those who murder in the name of Islam will not go to heaven, but will be consigned to hell. My problem is that that I don't believe that the majority of them believe that. I think that they know their scriptures and they know that Mohammed demanded murder in the name of Allah. I think that there is no fear of damnation for these atrocities because these are part and parcel of Islam, not as it was practiced in the Seventh Century, but as it has been practiced every day since Mohammed took up the sword. It is how Islam is practiced today, in every place where Muslims feel secure enough to get away with it. Perhaps there are those who oppose this, but until they demonstrate that they are more than a fringe minority among the faithful, we are going to have to assume that this is the Islamic norm, and deal with it accordingly.

That's a non-sequitur. You are assuming that the radicals are not supported by the mainstream, but in fact, they couldn't operate without the collusion of the mainstream. It's where they recruit. It's how they evade capture. Until the mainstream stands up and denounces this with the same fervor that they denounce cartoons and beauty pagents, then we need to take precautions, because this kind of thing is going to continue until either we convert or die, or Muslims stop tolerating mass murder.

If necessary, yes. Better than having subversion out in the open, where it demonstrates our inability to protect ourselves and our lack of commitment to our own ideals and values.

Okay, I'm going to have to read your article later because of new work rules and I'm almost out of time. But two things.

1) Why would you want people to go underground where you can't see them?

2) You seem to think we should be reporting it when we learn about an extremist who we haven't seen break laws yet. I know extremists. Some are on the left and at least one is on the right. However, I haven't seen them break laws. Do you believe I should go to the FBI? Will they do anything other than laugh if I do? No, seriously.

Okay, I'm going to have to read your article later because of new work rules and I'm almost out of time. But two things.

1) Why would you want people to go underground where you can't see them?

Permitting them to continue to operate in the open gives them huge advantages. The presence of subversive institutions in the open shows our enemies that we are weak, and will not defend our culture and society from a threat that barely pretends to disguise itself, and lends them legitimacy in the eyes of our own people. They conclude that the Muslim Brotherhood and its subsidiaries are simply operating houses of worship, analogous to churches, synagogues and temples, when in fact they are the nucleii of terrorist indoctrination. Allowing them to operate openly permits them to do other activities openly, such as fundraising. It's much easier to disguise funds raised through legitimate activities and transfer them to illicit ones than it is to obtain those funds underground. It's especially true when the fundraising includes tax-exempt status for the organizations.

Originally Posted by Lanie

2) You seem to think we should be reporting it when we learn about an extremist who we haven't seen break laws yet. I know extremists. Some are on the left and at least one is on the right. However, I haven't seen them break laws. Do you believe I should go to the FBI? Will they do anything other than laugh if I do? No, seriously.

The FBI, under Holder, would probably laugh. The NYPD, OTOH, would investigate. Think of it this way: A man who fits the demographics of a potential terrorist to a "T" disrupts a sermon because he considers it insufficiently pious, and storms out. Somebody there knows him, and knows that he is becoming more radicalized daily. That person reports it to the various counterterrorism agencies, at least one of which would look into his travels, see that he had recently been back and forth to Chechnya, and flag him for further scrutiny. They might cross-reference his file with other federal agencies, and they'd discover that his older brother has been denied naturalization due to radical affiliations. It's about connecting the dots. Now, maybe the federal agencies blow off the report, but at least the people in the mosque have tried to raise the red flag and protect their fellow citizens. And Tsarnaev is only one example. Do you believe that there weren't people who saw Nidal Hasan's radicalism increasing? Hell, the army saw it and did nothing, and you saw the results. We need to change the thought process that places political correctness and diversity fesishism ahead of national security within those agencies charged with protecting America. The people who bring this information to light have to know that it will be acted on, and that they will be protected. That's how you fight an insurgency, and make no mistake about it, that is what we are dealing with.

Permitting them to continue to operate in the open gives them huge advantages. The presence of subversive institutions in the open shows our enemies that we are weak, and will not defend our culture and society from a threat that barely pretends to disguise itself, and lends them legitimacy in the eyes of our own people. They conclude that the Muslim Brotherhood and its subsidiaries are simply operating houses of worship, analogous to churches, synagogues and temples, when in fact they are the nucleii of terrorist indoctrination. Allowing them to operate openly permits them to do other activities openly, such as fundraising. It's much easier to disguise funds raised through legitimate activities and transfer them to illicit ones than it is to obtain those funds underground. It's especially true when the fundraising includes tax-exempt status for the organizations.

The FBI, under Holder, would probably laugh. The NYPD, OTOH, would investigate. Think of it this way: A man who fits the demographics of a potential terrorist to a "T" disrupts a sermon because he considers it insufficiently pious, and storms out. Somebody there knows him, and knows that he is becoming more radicalized daily. That person reports it to the various counterterrorism agencies, at least one of which would look into his travels, see that he had recently been back and forth to Chechnya, and flag him for further scrutiny. They might cross-reference his file with other federal agencies, and they'd discover that his older brother has been denied naturalization due to radical affiliations. It's about connecting the dots. Now, maybe the federal agencies blow off the report, but at least the people in the mosque have tried to raise the red flag and protect their fellow citizens. And Tsarnaev is only one example. Do you believe that there weren't people who saw Nidal Hasan's radicalism increasing? Hell, the army saw it and did nothing, and you saw the results. We need to change the thought process that places political correctness and diversity fesishism ahead of national security within those agencies charged with protecting America. The people who bring this information to light have to know that it will be acted on, and that they will be protected. That's how you fight an insurgency, and make no mistake about it, that is what we are dealing with.

Okay, I've read your article. The Imam I spoke to a couple of years ago, I think he did say that people who murdered would go to Hell (including terrorist acts). Also important. I'm not sure about Islam, but Christianity has the belief that even murder can be forgiven by God. One has to be sincere in their repentance though.

Are you saying you'd like all Islam to be made illegal? I think that's playing a very dangerous game. First, we couldn't watch the activities from where we're at. Next, letting government get involved with religion will open the door to their getting involved with others. I think it would be better to only forbid the building of mosques funding by disguised terroist groups.

I'll think about what you said on the other stuff, but honestly I keep thinking I need proof. I've been "not taken seriously" before when I turned in stuff. (Not political, but other stuff).

Regardless of your antipathy for Islam, the United States has religious freedom and people are free to worship as they see fit. I understand the concept of zoning laws (I have participated in zoning debates at the city level) but you cannot single out one religion for zoning restrictions. You can zone to prevent houses of worship from being built in a given area but you can't say big charismatic bible churches are fine but no Synagogues or Baha'i temples.

This isn't about antipathy towards Islam (first liberal talking point: Accuse the accuser of bigotry), it's about the rule of law and subversion of US law by a terrorist front group. We're not talking about zoning restrictions (second liberal talking point: raise an irrelevant issue and try to sidestep the arguments), I am talking about RICO prosecutions for an entity, the North American Islamic Trust, with proven terrorist ties and which owns more than half of the mosques in America and which has been demonstrated to have funded terror groups and is a front for an umbrella organization of terror groups. Claiming that this applies to all other religious structures is also a red herring (See second liberal talking point). If the Catholic Church or the Baha'is or some other denomination were engaged in a deliberate attempt to undermine our Constitutional order, I'd demand the same things be applied to them, but no other religious sect is actively working to subvert American democracy to religious law. The Muslim Brotherhood is.

Originally Posted by Arroyo_Doble

This is a straight forward issue. And you talk out of both sides of your mouth. You agree that the 1st protects religious freedom but try to get around that to feed you hatred of a specific religion by claiming it isn't one. Even though it has been around longer than even Protestant Christianity; if you aren't a complete mindless bigot, you acknowledge it is even older than that since its roots are the same as Judaism and Christianity. Claiming it isn't a religion is absurd.

Again, it's not my hatred (the accusation of bigotry again), and I didn't say that Islam isn't a religion (another liberal tactic, misrepresent the arguments of your adversary), I said that "Islam is not simply a religion, it's a totalitarian political construct with religious aspects." To the extent that Islam is a religion, it is protected by the First Amendment. When it oversteps the bounds of worship and seeks to undermine our political institutions, then it ceases to have the protections that we accord to religions. Religious freedom does not give a religious group the right to murder, steal or otherwise violate secular laws. If it did, then the Thuggee cult, which also predates Protestant Christianity, would also be protected. Or are you arguing that ritual murder of non-believers is a protected practice? After all, the Thuggees have been around since at least the 11th century (The earliest recorded mention of the Thugs comes from Ziau-d din Barni's History of Firoz Shah written about 1356, which referred to an incident in 1290), so that must make them a legitimate relligion, worthy of First Amendment protections (or would have, if the British hadn't eradicated the cult in an egregious display of cultural superiority) right?

I will now let you have a the last word on this. Be sure to link to some anti-Islam sites talking about how the 18th caliphate is coming to take our stamp collections.

And finally, ignore the evidence cited, belittle and ridicule the arguments without answering them directly, declare victory and slink off with your tail between your legs. You are utterly predictable. You want links to anti-Islam sites? Okay, I suppose that the FBI runs an anti-Islam site, but here is their corroboration of the data that I have presented regarding the terrorist status of Hamas and its relationship to the Muslim Brotherhood:

John S. Pistole
Assistant Director, Counterterrorism Division, FBI
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Before the House Committee on Financial Service Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
Washington DC
September 24, 2003

>SNIP<

The purpose of today's hearing is to address issues regarding the financing of the terrorist organization, Hamas. By way of background, Hamas is one of the Specially Designated Terrorist Organizations listed in the Annex to Executive Order12947 as a foreign terrorist group engaged in grave acts of violence that disrupt the Middle East Peace Process and constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States.

Hamas is a terrorist organization that espouses an extremist Islamic fundamentalist ideology. Hamas was founded in 1987 in the Gaza Strip and is dedicated to the establishment of an Islamic Palestinian State that encompasses Israel, the West Bank and Gaza. Hamas is a militant Palestinian offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood which was founded in 1928 to replace secular rulers with an Islamic society.

>SNIP<

Even after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks against the World Trade Center and Pentagon, Hamas' public statements urge support for continued violence against Israel and the United States. In a September 2001 public statement published by Reuters, Rantissi echoed calls by Taliban clerics in Afghanistan, urging "Muslims on Friday to unite against any U.S. retaliation for the terror attacks in New York and Washington." He went on to say, "It is impossible for Muslims to stand handcuffed and blindfolded while other Muslims, their brothers, are being attacked. The Muslim world should stand up against the American threats which are fed by the Jews. To the best of our knowledge, Hamas has thus far refrained from intentionally attacking U.S. persons or installations.

Through its acts of violence, Hamas has established itself as one of the primary Palestinian terrorist organizations continuing the "armed struggle" against Israel. These terrorist attacks target not only military targets, but civilian ones as well. According to the State Department, during 2002 alone, more than 370 persons, including 10 U.S. citizens, were killed in Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip by acts of terrorism. These casualties have continued to mount, including during the past two weeks, when a Hamas terrorist attack killed two U.S. citizens and wounded one.

The United States designated Hamas a specially designated terrorist organization on January 25, 1995. This designation made it a violation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to conduct any financial or business transaction with Hamas. On August 22, 2003, in the wake of Hamas' claim of responsibility for the August 19, 2003 suicide bombing attack in Jerusalem, which killed twenty persons, including four U.S. citizens, the U. S. Department of Treasury's Office of Foreign Asset Control, designated the following Hamas leaders as "specially designated global terrorists"; Sheikh Ahmad Yassin, Khalid Misha'al, Abd Al-Aziz al-Rantissi, Imad Khalil Al-Alami, Usama Hamdan and Mousa Abu Marzouk. Mousa Abu Marzouk, a senior Hamas political leader had been previously designated as a terrorist by the Department of Treasury in August, 1995 and was subsequently deported from the United States. These designations make it illegal to conduct any transactions with these individuals. Furthermore, based on the designations, the United States government will seek to freeze all U.S. assets of these Hamas leaders. The following four organizations, based mainly in Europe and the West Bank, were similarly designated as supporters of terrorism; Comite de Bienfaisance et de Secours aux Palestinians, Palestinian Association of Austria (PVOE), Palestinian Relief and Development Fund (Interpal) and Sanibil Association for Relief and Development.

The U.S. Government estimates that Hamas' annual budget is at least $50 million. The majority of these funds are generated by the contributions of Non Government Organizations (NGOs), state sponsors and wealthy individuals. While most of these funds may be used to support the social programs espoused by Hamas, any contribution to Hamas, for any purpose, frees up other funds for its planned violence. The leaders of Hamas have taken advantage of donations made to NGOs and charities, which may appeal for the need to support orphans and widows, as well as, build schools and hospitals, but are actually "fronts" for Hamas and use a portion of these contributions to support the terrorist organization's military wing. Many donors believe that their charitable contributions were fulfilling one of their tenets of Islam (Zakat), but have unwittingly supported terrorist attacks through payments made to the NGOs and charities, which are actually Hamas "front" companies. Others have contributed financial assistance because they sympathized with the Palestinian people, who have suffered socio-economic hardships, as a result of the past three years increased violent conflict. These charities are an easy target for fraud, as certain funds, which were originally provided for charitable purposes find their way to supporting Hamas' military wing and ultimately are the source for terrorist attacks.

The United States Government designated all facets of Hamas as a terrorist organization, since it was impossible to differentiate between money Hamas was utilizing for social reform and funds which supported terrorist attacks. The European Union (EU) had until recently only designated Hamas' military wing as a terrorist organization. However, through evidence and intelligence provided by the U.S. government, the EU has taken steps to restrict all branches of Hamas and may move to block funding to its political bureau, fund-raising charities and other social welfare programs. The EU's recent decision has the potential to further disrupt Hamas' funding methods by eliminating its prior strategy of using NGOs and charities as "front" companies to generate financing for its terrorist attacks.

The FBI's program on attacking Hamas elements in the United States has been to focus on disrupting and dismantling the funding networks which support Hamas. In the United States, the majority of Hamas' financial support is generated through the fund-raising efforts of various NGOs. In December, 2001, based on the initiative of an FBI investigation, the Department of Treasury designated the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLFRD) as a Specially Designated Terrorist Organization, freezing the assets of HLFRD and making it illegal to conduct transactions with the organization. The FBI was an intricate contributor to the evidence which identified HLFRD as the lead fund-raising source for Hamas in the United States. In 2000, HLFRD had raised approximately $13 million dollars. The results of the Department of Treasury's designation of HLFRD and the subsequent freezing of its assets delivered a significant blow to the fund-raising efforts of Hamas in the United States. Presently, the FBI is focused on identifying NGOs, which seek to replace HLFRD's position as the major financier of Hamas in the U.S. To date, no NGOs exist which compare with the fund-raising capabilities exhibited by HLFRD. The FBI is also investigating smaller Hamas financing efforts being conducted by criminal enterprises in the U.S., which have shown either associations with known Hamas members or sympathies toward its ideology. These investigations have uncovered a myriad of criminal activities used to generate funds, a portion of which is then forwarded to NGOs associated with Hamas. Some of the suggested criminal activity include, but are not limited to, drug trafficking, credit card fraud, counterfeit products, fraudulent documents, cigarette tax fraud and stolen infant formula.

Okay, so you have the FBI explaining why Hamas is a terrorist group, and how they were formed from the Muslim Brotehrhood. Now, let's go over to those other notorious Islamophobes, the US Department of Justice (http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/2...7r-summary.pdf), for the connections between CAIR and Hamas:

In 2008, the FBI developed a policy on its interactions with CAIR based in part on evidence presented during the 2007 trial of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development.! The evidence at trial linked CAIR leaders to Hamas, a specially designated terrorist organization, and CAIR was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the case. The policy was intended to significantly restrict the FBI's non-investigative interactions with CAIR and to prevent CAIR from publicly exploiting such contacts with the FBI.

And, if you bother to go to the court transcripts (I'm told that the US District Court is just rife with Islamophobia), you can read all about the actual evidence used to connect CAIR, ISNA and NAIT to the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas. I had to go to that raging site of Islamophobia, the ACLU, to find the transcript:

The evidence introduced at trial, for example, established that ISNA and NAIT were among those organizations created by the U.S.-Muslim Brotherhood.8 Govt. Exh. 3-64 (seized from the home of HAMAS leader Ismail Elbarasse); Govt. Exh. 3-3 (Muslim Brotherhood document noting that ISNA was founded by the US-Muslim Brotherhood) ;Govt. Exh. 3-85 (1991 memorandum authored by U.S.-Muslim Brotherhood Shura Council member Mohamed Akram Adlouni, recognizing ISNA and NAIT as Muslim Brotherhood organizations.) Government’s Exhibit 3-85, entitled An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal of the Group, described the Brotherhood’s strategic goal as a kind of “grand Jihad”:

The Ikhwan must understand that their role in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western Civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious….

Govt. Exh. 3-85. At the end of the document, the memorandum lists those Muslim Brotherhood organizations that – if they all worked together – could help accomplish this grand objective. These organizations include ISNA, NAIT, the Occupied Land Fund (OLF )(the former name of the Holy Land Foundation), the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP), the United Association for Studies and Research (UASR), and others. Id. ISNA and NAIT, in fact, shared more with HLF than just a parent organization. They were intimately connected with the HLF and its assigned task of providing financial support to HAMAS. Shortly after HAMAS was founded in 1987, as an outgrowth of the Muslim Brotherhood, Govt. Exh. 21-61, the International Muslim Brotherhood ordered the Muslim Brotherhood chapters throughout the world to create Palestine Committees, whose job it was to support HAMAS with “media, money and men.” Govt. Exh. 3-15. The U.S.-Muslim Brotherhood created the U.S. Palestine Committee, which documents reflect was initially comprised of three organizations: the OLF (HLF), the IAP, and the UASR. CAIR was later added to these organizations. Govt. Exh. 3-78 (listing IAP, HLF, UASR and CAIR as part of the Palestine Committee, and stating that there is “[n]o doubt America is the ideal location to train the necessary resources to support the Movement worldwide . . .”). The mandate of these organizations, per the International Muslim Brotherhood, was to support HAMAS, and the HLF’s particular role was to raise money to support HAMAS’ organizations inside the Palestinian territories. Govt. Exh. 3-17 (objective of the Palestine Committee is to support HAMAS).

8 The Muslim Brotherhood, also known as the Ikhwan Al Muslimin, was founded in Egypt in 1928 by Hassan Al Banna. Its ultimate goal is the creation of a global Islamic State governed by Sharia law. Muslim Brotherhood members first migrated to the United States in the 1960s where they began their grassroots work on campuses, through an organization called the Muslim Students Association. At that time, the U.S.-Muslim Brotherhood was loosely structured and in its infancy. Govt. Exh. 3-89. By the mid-1980s, the U.S.-Muslim Brotherhood had grown exponentially, established numerous front organizations, developed a solid hierarchical structure, and received direction from the International Muslim Brotherhood’s General Guide. Id. HAMAS was established in 1987 as an outgrowth of the Muslim Brotherhood, by Muslim Brotherhood leader Sheik Ahmad Yassin. Govt. Exh. 21-61, 3-6. In the late-1980s and early 1990s, the U.S.-Muslim Brotherhood was controlled by Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood members, and the leader of the U.S.-Muslim Brotherhood was Mousa Abu Marzook, who in 1989 was selected to be the leader of HAMAS, a position that he held while residing in the United States and controlling the US-Muslim Brotherhood. Govt. Exh. 3-1. Marzook was arrested in New York in 1995, deported to Jordan, and subsequently expelled to Syria, where he currently serves as the head of the HAMAS political bureau under Khalid Mishal. See generally testimony of Matthew Levitt.

In other words, there is a wealth of evidence documenting that NAIT is a front for the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas. It holds up to 70% of the deeds to mosques in the US. You wanted to give me the last word? Fine, the last word is that you don't know the facts, don't care about them, and are too gutless and ignorant to argue them, so you impugn those who do know them and any source that doesn't agree with your fictitious view.

Based on all that we've seen in this thread, I still find it incomprehensible and more than a little dumb that this Nation does not have ANY recourse against an entity that hides behind religion, and fosters/encourages terrorism.

Arroyo seems to believe that is the case -- that this Nation is helpless against the muzzies or any other violent faction simply because it's a "religion."

Westboro Baptist Church may be lower than pond scum, but I don't believe they're in the terrorism business.

I'm no lawyer, but I'd think that with the exception of Barry's regime who never met a muzzie he didn't like, a more discerning public official just might be able to add 2 and 2 and come up with 4.